User talk:Economizer

Ageo020 03:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Economizer 03:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

TC Craig
Don't worry about TC Craig. You did the right thing. If you need someone to back you up, let me know. Cheers --Matt 21:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Economizer 03:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobel-related move
Hi Economizer,
 * ''Support a change to Nobel prize in Economics. Doing a Google Search, "Nobel Prize in Economics" (subtracting Wikipedia) gets 273,000 hits. "Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" only gets 27,800 hits. The article should be titled in accordance with the most popular, and most searched for, title for the prize...

Have you seen/read WP:GT...? A popular title may be misleading, as I believe it is in this case, but will still redirect to something more accurate (such as "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics" here). Thanks for your input, David Kernow 02:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is a case of a Google Test being misleading. If you watch the news they always refer to it simply as the "Nobel prize in economics." Economizer 15:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies not to be clearer; I'm not disputing the results of searching the internet or that the prize is referred to as a "Nobel Prize" in the news or colloquially, but that whether an encyclopedia should further propogate such inaccuracies. I'd say "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics" appears to satisfy the criteria of being sufficiently accurate while remaining succinct. Yours, David 15:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I may agree with you if it weren't for the fact that Wikipedia is supposed to reflect consensus of sources. If the conensus out there simply calls it "Nobel prize in economics" then it seems that's what we should be calling it. I'm putting my own personal opinions aside as to what name would make the most sense or be technically correct. Economizer 15:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm under the impression that Wikipedia is meant to reflect a consensus between its editors, not necessarily a consensus between sources (especially potentially unreliable/unaccountable/transitory internet sources)...? Also, I suspect the vast majority of the internet results occur on sites that aren't encyclopedias/e or striving to be encyclopedic (i.e. not reference works employing principles such as WP:VERIFY). Rather than withhold whatever name or names you reckon would make sense, please share it/them in the discussion!  Yours, David 02:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Consensus among editors is secondary. A consensus among editors that A=2 is not enough. Where consensus comes in is on whether a conensus of editors agree that the sources say A=2. Now, if we're going to title an article I think it makes sense to title it with the most often used name for that thing. The most often used name would be found by surveying a number of sources to see how the great majority of people refer to it. A Google search is a quick and easy way to do that. Sure, it's not perfect but the numbers are pretty overwhelming. And everytime I've heard it mentioned on the news it's the "Nobel prize in economics." So, I don't see any reason to change my mind on that. Economizer 03:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Understood; thanks for explaining your view. Though we may disagree on what we'd each prefer, I think we can agree that the present title is unnecessarily long; is "Nobel Prize in Economics" the only alternative you think would be acceptable...? Regards, David 10:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

 * Where do you see more than three reversions? I was making different changes and Diego kept reverting them. You should remove the block. Economizer 19:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on March 10 2007 to Marginal utility
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 17:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

nuclear grenade
You appear to have misread the 3RR. Under a strict intrepretation of that rule, you misrepresented what I did, but in doing so you implicitly misrepresented what you had done. Under an interpretation sufficiently loose for me to be in actual violation, you were in actual violation. In any event, you threw a “nuclear grenade”; unless it was a dud, you couldn't possibly out-run the blast. —SlamDiego 05:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)